Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche Cattedra di Political Science The Great Recession’s contribution to the spread of populism in the European political system Relatore Candidato Prof. Leonardo Morlino Francesco Maria Pintucci Matr. 071512 Anno Accademico 2016/2017 The Great Recession’s contribution to the spread of populism in the European political system Index Introduction 2 Chapter 1 What is populism 3 -1.1 The quest for a definition 3 -1.2 Methodological pitfalls 5 -1.3 The minimal definition 8 -1.4 Characteristics of modern populisms 9 Chapter 2 Political and economic crises 10 -2.1 Political crisis 10 -2.2 Economic crisis 13 -2.3 Case study 1: France 15 -2.4 Case study 2: Italy 19 -2.5 Case study 3: United Kingdom 23 Conclusion 27 Bibliography 32 Summary 34 1 Introduction In the aftermath of the Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy in September 2008 the trust in our economic system has declined. This has greatly contributed to feed the mistrust towards our political system which was already in a period of uncertainty. People felt that their interests weren’t represented by national parliaments, especially when, after 2008, austerity was introduced as the main policy to solve the crisis in Europe. The general sentiment was that normal citizens were paying for the mistakes of an “elite”. This dichotomy between “The People” and the “Elite” is one of the main arguments of a populist leader, so, in this scenario, it was easy for populisms to become attractive. The economic crisis was the trigger for a political revolution that was waiting only for a big shock to explode. Populist parties and ideas were already present in the pre-crisis period, the elements for a political crisis were already inside our democracies, but the economic crisis gave a major push. The lower general standard of living made people eager for someone to blame on one side, and on the other made them aspire for an immediate solution. This was the perfect ground for the propagation of populist arguments. To all of this we must add the constant presence of media in the political scenario, populists have demonstrated, thanks to their characteristics, to be perfectly comfortable and particularly fit to appear in television. The goal of this essay is to observe and analyze the spread of populism throughout Europe in recent years with particular emphasis to its connections to the early 21st century recession. This work will be divided in three parts, in the first one we will try to give a general definition of populism, we will see which characteristics of populism are present, and to what extent, in the European political system nowadays, and we will analyze why they have become attractive in this particular period for many European voters. Then we will investigate how the economic and political crisis in these years are related and how have they contributed to the spread of populism. We will look at three European countries and we will analyze the parameters that indicate the level of the politic and economic crisis, such as electoral volatility, trust in parliament, and satisfaction in the way democracy works in one’s own country for the former, and GDP growth, level of unemployment, and government gross debt as a percentage of GDP for the latter. These parameters give us a subjective idea of the level of the crisis before and after 2008 and we will be able to see if there are any patterns in each state between the two crisis. Finally we will sum up the data from the second part to drive a conclusion on the general level of populist influence on European democracies, and we will try to predict future developments in our political system interrogating ourselves on a possible way to bring Europe out of the stagnation in which it seems to be. 2 Chapter 1 What is Populism It is common today to hear that populism is the biggest threat to our democracies, and that populists are leading the way to a more illiberal world. Representative democracy is living a period of crisis. Between voters there is a rising feeling of impossibility to have an influence over the decisions of the elected. Extremisms are gaining sustainers, and the traditional parties seem not to be able to catalyze the will of their voters. New actors are appearing in the political scenario to try to incarnate the will of the people, like the Five Star Movement in Italy, or old extremist parties are living a moment of great consent like they haven’t for a while like the Front National in France. All these parties have been labelled as populist from political commentators, but if we give a closer look we can see how there are huge ideological differences both internally to a single party and externally between different populist parties. In fact when speaking of populists we could be referring to an enormous variety of different realities. In Europe we can find right wing populist parties like Alternative für Deutschland in Germany, left wing parties like Podemos in Spain, we can also find centrist parties like the Five Star Movement in Italy. How can realities that are so different from one another be labelled all as populist? This brought scholars to interrogate on the nature of populism and on a possible definition that could include all populisms, also because as Tagueiff sustains during the ’80’s and the ’90’s it almost became a synonym for demagogy since it has been overused. Now we will try to give a definition and find the characteristics that can fit all modern populisms. 1.1 The quest for a definition As we said elaborating a general definition for Populism is not an easy task. Studies on post-war populisms started in 1967 when at the London School of Economics an inter-disciplinary group of scholars made a conference to define the phenomenon. Two years later the conference proceedings have been published by Ionescu and Gellner in book form, but a final conclusion on the definition of Populism was missing. Unfortunately they were not able to conclude their task since, as they say, populism seemed to “bob up everywhere, but in many and contradictory shapes”(Ionescu and Gellner, 1969). The phenomenon was observed in a multitude of different realities, from anticolonialist movements in Africa, 3 to peasant movements in eastern Europe. This permitted it to assume various forms, making it impossible for these scholars to arrive to a definition. “There can be no doubt on the importance of populism, but no one is quite clear just what it is” (Ionescu and Gellner, 1969). They didn’t distinguish between the different historical and political contexts in which Populism was capable of emerging making it impossible to find a common ground. As Sartori later will say it was a “fishing expedition without adequate nets”(Sartori, 1970:1039). Margaret Canovan in 1981 published an important study on the phenomenon of populism distinguishing between various types of populisms, but still fails to arrive to an unique definition. She distinguishes between agrarian and political populism. The first one includes three categories which can be associated at precise moments and revolutions in which a part of the population was fighting for reforms and a better condition like the US Peoples Party in late 19th century, the post-WWI east European peasant movements, and the radical agrarian movements like the Narodniki in Russia. Political populism instead is more modern, its scope is to generate a movement to establish popular sovereignty. In this case she identifies four categories: Populist dictatorship, populist democracy, reactionary populism, and politician’s populism. Even if her work was appreciated and is a milestone today for the study of populism, Canovan fails to give a unique definition that could fit all movements defined as populist. Latin America was a major source of study on the matter during the 70’s and the 80’s. Unlike the European counterpart who aimed to arrive to a definition, their focus was on the socioeconomic determinants that were generating the development of mass political agitations, and how the political participation of the lower class was channeled through a populist movement. Two different approaches where developed: a modernization theory, and structural Marxism. For the sustainers of the first theory populism was a means to introduce into what used to be oligarchic politics the new emerging urban lower and middle class (Drake, 1982). Structural Marxism sustainers instead thought that the stage of import substitution industrialization brought to a multiclass political movement whose leaders could build cross- class alliances (O’Donnel, 1973). The problem with these studies is that they are applicable only in specific contexts, there is no possibility of comparing different cases, they are all focused on Latin America authoritarian regimes, Peron in Argentina, Vargas in Brazil or Cardenas in Mexico. They observe and describe very specific contexts, so they can’t explain other realities like Europe or North America. Nevertheless these studies highlighted two important features of an emerging populist movement: its mass movement character, and the importance of a charismatic leadership (de la Torre, 2000). By 1990 a new form of populism has been observed in Latin America, neopopulism. The interruption of Import substitution industrialization and the rise of liberalism permitted to the new political figures to implement neoliberal policies while enjoying high levels of popular support. This happened to Fujimori 4 in Peru, Menem in Argentina, Salinas de Gortari in Mexico, and de Mello in Brazil. This was a new era for populism and permitted scholars to analyze a new trend which is the use of populism as a political instrument.